Media wannabe Martyn ‘bomber’ Bradbury, twisting on the spit of his own sour double-mindedness appeared yesterday to pour scorn and contempt on his Right wing foil, blogger Cameron Slater:

” … to think that the SIS would hand papers like that over to Slater of all people is unbelievable.”

and

“It is an incredible thing to watch, information as sensitive as this being handed out to the gutter (sorry Cam, but come on, you are that pet crocodile thrown into the sewer of the gutter), WTF are the SIS thinking? “

Really? Why the vitriol? From where I sit, it seems Bradbury’s near constant abuse of his (UPDATE: until now) regular guest commentator is fueled by an oily blend of ideology, frustration and professional jealousy. (On the other hand, it could be man love.)

Are some citizens more equal that others, Martyn?

ANY citizen can submit an Official Information Act request. Including Cameron Slater. Does Martyn Bradbury expect us to accept his fetid implication that Slater (‘of all people’, ‘pet crocodile thrown into the sewer’) should be discriminated against or somehow debarred from using the OIA? That’s a slippery slope.

Should people with whom Martyn disagrees receive second-class treatment from government agencies? Follow his tortured logic and it seems that is his call — which is consistent with his previous anti-democratic statements advocating the exclusion of Cathy Odgers from potential candidate selection for ACT and former white supremacist Alex Fogerty (and anyone like him) from even taking part in NZ political debate! That way leads to gulags, as I said before.

Judging by appearances, Martyn Bradbury has an issue with accepting dissenting voices. That’s an unfortunate trait for someone whose ambition appears to be to one day grow up to be a real life ‘media commentator’ that people actually listen to.

While it’s common for the Official Information Act to be utilised by journalists and others in the ‘media’, it is a law designed to enable citizens to hold their government machinery accountable.

That (despite Martyn Bradbury’s and others’ hallucination/fear/loathing) is all ‘Citizen’ Slater did. That he was first off the mark, and cannily couched his request in deliberately limited terms that seemed likely to him to get a quick result (i.e. limited to papers that were probably already on the recently-smeared SIS director’s desk) just makes him an effective inquirer.

Broad OIA requests (fishing expeditions) require more bureaucratic ‘processing time’, as anyone accustomed to dealing with government agencies knows. Bradbury and others’ agitated mis-statement of the facts (e.g. describing the SIS as ‘leaking’ info to Slater) just further corrodes their credibility and, forgive me, makes them look like uninformed plonkers.

Actions of the SIS — Tucker wants to go home?

On the other, political, question: Should SIS boss Tucker have ‘expedited’ Slater’s OIA request: Duh. What was his alternative? Delay? Sit on the request? Obfuscate? (i.e. Standard operating procedure.) Would that have been ‘better’?

I’ve been told that Tucker presaged his ‘notice’ to the Prime Minister and Mr Goff of his intention to grant Slater’s OIA request by seeking Crown Law Office advice about his options. So Goff’s (reported) ‘objection’ to the release was met with words to the effect of: “Crown Law says we have to comply with the OIA and supply redacted documents.” Bureaucrat snooker.

A quick survey: Do you think Mr Tucker, faced with his integrity being used as a political football, was (a) more inclined or (b) less inclined to shield Mr Goff from any legally-compliant release that appeared to contradict Mr Goff’s assertions against him? Gee, let me think.

Better question: Do you think a career public servant like Tucker appreciates a politician making him out to be, let’s not mince words, a liar? No. (But what if it’s true?)

I studied bureaucracy at Victoria (majored in Politics and studied Public Power and Administrative Behaviour at Vic under Bob Gregory) and let me tell you this: Politicians and public servants have a prickly relationship at the best of times. A politician who publicly attacks a member of the civil service is making enemies he really can’t afford to make. They will find a way to hurt him. Members of both parties fall into this trap. This spat between Tucker and Goff can be seen as an example of bureaucratic whiplash.

I’m not so sure it is political. I think it’s personal. Tucker’s (reported) actions of ‘soliciting’ OIA requests from media (if true) … and then by-anyone’s-standards clearly fast-tracking a response to the first OIA request to right wing/National Party blogger Cameron Slater can be seen as personally vindictive. I think he was trying to defend his reputation from political attack. Has he overstepped the mark? Yes, I think so.

In my view Tucker should have sucked it up and maintained a professional silence. Is that a challenge? Yes. Don’t like it, Mr Tucker? Resign. Leave the politicians like John Key and Bill English to malign Phil Goff as they have done, effectively calling the Leader of the Opposition a liar and publicly, repeatedly, questioning his integrity. Their disrespect for Goff is unquestionably, transparently political. The more they (and the likes of Cameron Slater) pile on kicking Phil Goff … the less plausible Goff’s so-called ‘sins’ and [alleged] faults seem.

A head of department’s first role is to protect their minister. That’s the politcal reality that Tucker seems to have forgotten, or has put aside in (a) petulance, or (b) embarrassed guilt. (Don’t forget to consider the unfashionable possibility that Phil Goff might be right.)

Tucker’s role as head of department obliges him to protect his masters — in the first instance the PM … but, being the SIS, the position of Director is unique in that he is also by convention accountable to the Leader of the Opposition — thus the requirement in this case for him to brief the Labour leader. If he tripped up, he’s only made things worse.

Tucker has demonstrated a lack of deference to one of his bosses. He has shown himself willing to be a loose cannon, and insubordinate. I can’t be the only one thinking perhaps he’s not cut out for the job. The political reality of the public service will not long tolerate such untrustworthiness and rebellion. There’s no room for cowboys in the top civil service, even if they are fighting for the survival/relevance of their patch.

Time to put Tucker out to pasture? Yeah, I think so. His actions are, effectively, notice that he’s had enough and wants to retire. OK.

– P

UPDATE: As I was writing this, Cameron Slater has just blogged that he’s had a gutsful of Martyn Bradbury’s appalling disrespect and will decline further invitations to be drenched in his spittle. Good call, if you ask me.

Ross: Yes, agreed. Phil Goff may not be the most adroit politician in the country, but claims he’s been seeking some political benefit from the machinations about this seem over-egged and implausible to me too.

I think Warren Tucker has blown his career. The SIS hothouse is not for everyone, just as not every copper is Commissioner of Police material. The rules and conventions governing senior public servants HOD are clear.

Outski. Just a matter of time.

As for John Key/Bill English’s enthusiasm to use the fracas to ‘bash’ Goff: well, they’re fulfilling our [low] expectations of politicians, aren’t they?

I doubt very much Mr Tucker is ‘accountable’ to Mr Goff. He is required to brief Mr Goff but he is ‘accountable’ to the PM. That is an entirely different thing and I think your call for Tucker’s resignation is vacuous.

Adolf: You say:He is required to brief Mr Goff but he is ‘accountable’ to the PM. That is an entirely different thing …

Yes, the Minister in Charge of the SIS (and the GCSB) is always the Prime Minister. Tucker is, as you say, ‘required’ to brief Goff as LOP. Your objection to my use of the word ‘accountable’ is understandable. He’s actually accountable to the law. Refer section 4AA /3 of the Security Intelligence Service Act:

(3) The Director must consult regularly with the Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of keeping him or her informed about matters relating to security.

But ‘security matters’ (as flakey as they are in this country – think Ahmed Zaoui) have by firm convention been apolitical or bipartisan … and treated as such by New Zealand governments in the 50 years or so of the SIS’s existence.

John Key’s ill-disciplined rush to call Goff a liar, saying ‘he WAS SO’ briefed, and making it a character attack, speaks to me of his overconfidence – and contempt? – for the political system wrt ‘security matters’. He’s quite immature politically isn’t he? Maybe that’s part of his appeal?

Goff handled things badly too. He was under no pressure whatsover to respond to Fairfax/Tullett’s now-largely-discredited (SIS-fed?) story, nor was it a smart move to ‘call on the government to come clean’ about the so-called exposé. That speaks to me of a desperation by the Labour leader to be noticed/get headlines/feed the chooks.

There’s no political traction in NZ spy scandals.

A wiser approach (so easy for us to say after the event, huh?) would have been to maintain a dignified, “By convention we don’t publicly discuss ‘security matters’. I’ll be talking to the SIS and the Prime Minister about this, and if necessary, we’ll issue a statement …’

The ‘squabble’ is demeaning to all concerned, including Warren Tucker, who while you may like to see him stay in the position Adolf, I predict won’t be SIS Director a whole lot longer for the ‘cowboy intolerance’ reasoning I expressed in the post — that’s even if the Treasury review underway concludes we still need a separate Security Intelligence agency in addition to GCSB, where Tucker used to be top invisible dog.
My prediction and $3.80 will buy you a cappuccino.

“He may have brought the document to the meeting but he never showed it to me. Mr Tucker acknowledges that I was never briefed on or shown two other documents the SIS compiled on the issue of the Israeli backpackers.”

Mr Goff said he was since shown the document and he knew he had never seen it before.

Here’s a shock I 100% disagree with you.
Good too see you have not eased up with the link fodder.
The interviews I saw of both of Mr Tucker and Mr Goff slanted far different for me. Goff suggested he could not remember the Meeting taking place, not that it did not happen. and from now on he will take 3rd party to such meetings, What to remind him that he was in fact there. Look people such as myself who have tonnes of meetings cannot remember every detail in them when they occurred and the whole agenda. Its not bad management it human nature.
Mr Tucker on the other hand states that it did happen, not that he could not remember. Big difference. Yes its his word against Goffs. But like you Peter I don’t know whether it took place. But you know I believe Mr Tucker why because Phil Goff is becoming more of an idiot everyday.
Also unlike your angle on “why dispute this”, why would Mr Tucker go this far in regards to this so called meeting with Goof (deliberate) it has no impact on previous events. So I did not tell Goof, so what next.
He may well get the shove but this Goof incident has NO impact. and will in no way indicate whether the meeting did or did not take place.

It’s a hard thing calling someone a liar — well, not hard for John Key and Bill English, but for normal people I mean. That Goff dropped into lawyer-speak ‘I don’t recall’ only indicates he didn’t actually want to chase down Tucker’s truthfulness as a issue. But Tucker has apparently made it so.

Take a look at this discussion with Paul Buchanan on Breakfast TV on Friday, which includes clips of a pretty certain-sounding Phil Goff:

Buchanan makes the point that there are no winners in this situation … so for an experienced poli & ex-Minister like Goff (the likes of Cameron Slater can call him an ‘idiot’ and a ‘liar’ day and night but they’re just revealing dodgy political tactics, if you ask me — attacking the man, not the argument.)
… for Goff to pursue the-SIS-briefing-that-wasn’t matter, I say he must have a legitimate point about ‘political’ behaviour on the part of the SIS boss, which is against ‘the rules’: http://www.thepaepae.com/political-neutrality-sis-fail/17995/

After the fact interviews especially by Goof mean nothing he changes the whole story. His early reaction by stating I don’t remember having the meeting, for me settled the issue.
Don’t play the your attacking the person not the argument card.
He is a idiot. plain and simple. I have never seen so many people put hand in hands when Goof makes a statement.

I understand you don’t gave a high opinion of Phil Goff. Unfortunately that view seems to be impeding you from standing back and analysing what the issues are here.

It’s not simply a ‘lying idiot’ politician versus a noble public servant.

Warren Tucker has, in all likelihood it seems to me, been caught favouring National … and he’s been covering his arse.

If Tucker (incorrectly) told the PM that he had properly briefed Goff on the Israeli ‘spy scandal’ fizzer when he hadn’t (on which basis John Key then injudiciously called Goff a liar) he may then have found himself in a place where to save or ‘salvage’ some credibility with the PM he had to stick to his porkie.

Goff, despite your Slater-esque smear, isn’t an idiot plain and simple. Such cheap denigration is beneath you and adds nothing to the debate.

Thanks for your kind words and encouragement Ross.
I enjoy the interaction, whether I necessarily agree with all points expressed by contributors or not.
I’ve learned a lot from discussions here at ThePaepae.com.
– P

Martyn Bradbury = “cowardly critic” — Deborah Coddington

Cameron Slater’s withdrawal from service as Martyn Bradbury’s right wing bitch er, in-house pet whipping boy (which I referred to above) was apparently noticed by another of his targets, Deborah Coddington who mentioned it in passing inher NZ Herald column.

Cameron Slater doesn’t hold back in his pummelling of my writings but my repugnance for one of his cowardly critics far outweighs his loathing of me.

Slater recently blogged that he’d no longer be a panellist on Martyn Bradbury‘s television programme after Bradbury, among other insults, tried to link Slater’s Christian beliefs to far-right Christian Anders Breivik’s slaughter at Norway’s youth camp.

[…] Certainly, in this case it seems clear that Mr Gilmore is being 'thrown under a bus' or 'hung out to dry' or [insert crucification/execution metaphor of your choice here] by his former colleagues. An OIA request fulfilled with such speed is a rarity. The last one I can recall was when the then boss of the SIS Warren Tucker apparenty wanted to land a punch on then Opposition leader Phil Goff and fast-tracked an OIA response to a request by right wing lapblogger, activist and National Party mouthpiece Cameron Slater. (see: SIS boss’s slow resignation letter + Slater says enuf!) […]

Welcome

Follow The Paepae:

Sign up for Updates!

Sign up for occasional updates from The Paepae. Double opt-in, easy opt-out. [We will NEVER publish nor pass your details to anyone else.]